White

The appellants, a licensed realtor and his surety, respectively, have appealed from a judgment rendered in favor of a purchaser of a leasehold estate. They also appealed from orders denying a motion for á new trial, and a motion to vacate the judgment. The appeal from said orders being unauthorized by the statutes, it will be dismissed. (Chaplin v. Amador, 93 Cal. App. 358 [ 269 Pac. 544 ].)

In response to a published advertisement in one of the metropolitan newspapers, White communicated with Sarff, and was assured by the latter that he had for sale a lease on a cafe in the city of Los Angeles; and that the representations in said advertisement that it was a five-year lease, that the lessee had on deposit as security therefor the sum of $400, that the agent would sell the same for a specified price, including such deposit, and that investigation was invited, were true. Subsequent negotiations resulted in a purchase by respondent. Previously to the execution of the transfer White questioned the responsibility of the owner, and demanded of SarfE, “if you are sure everything is as you represent, you won’t hesitate a minute to sign the bill of sale”. The conveyance was prepared,…